Does a Full Democracy has a limit of people that it reaches and it starts being counterproductive...

I have the idea that you can have as many people in a democracy and it would be a best fair system possible. But the time it takes to have everyone's thought and opinion counted for can be reasonable if you have few enough people, have too many and it takes much longer and is more counterproductive. To a point (Like the United States Of America) a Republic of elected leaders is much more reasonable and would work better, while still getting the job at hand done. It would be absolutely insane to count everyone's vote in a large place like the US every time we think of attacking another nation or proposing a law.

Jul 11 2013:
This is relevant to the situation in Europe. Most European countries worked fairly well as democracies until the European project. A major complaint about the EU is the absence of democracy.

Jul 2 2013:
The revision of Constitution in Iceland the past years is a perfect example.... Sometimes time and speed are not important when civil rights are concerned .. I wonder what the results would of a referendum in USA in starting a new war in Iraq...

Jun 30 2013:
"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.... The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue."

It is obvious to me that we are beating the wrong drum. A Democracy obviously has the potential for corruption. Whereas a Republic is governed by a single standard which protects everyone. A Republic gives everyone a vote which is then put under the light of the Charter/Constitution to ensure the rights of the individual. It works where Democracy fails. It fails when it is allowed to be corrupted by Democracy.

And in this day and age of global communication it is possible for all who would have a say to be heard.

Should we choose a simple way of governing, with few people speaking for the many, or a more complicated one, where the many would speak for themselves? If that is what you are asking, I would answer without any hesitation that the most preferable form of government is obviously the latter. We should by no means choose simplicity over democracy, just because we lack either the imagination or the guts to change our political institutions to fit a political system where everyone could speak their mind and not be rendered mute by the influential, yet not always right, voices of those with concentrated power and wealth. It would be a tragic mistake to give up on real democracy, i.e "government of the people, by the people, for the people", just for simplicity's sake. After all, more than two centuries of both theory and practice have proven that the so called democracies of the modern industrialised world are nothing but hogwash, allowing the rich fully control the poor and, eventually, destroying the essence of the word democracy. As years go by it becomes more and more obvious that it is up to the people to make the move and change everything that "is rotten in the state of Denmark".

Jun 20 2013:
There is a limit of people for a Full Democracy to be productive... right now the limit is about 7 billion people. It is expected in the future to increase to 9 billion people where it will reach a plateau.

Watch some documentaries on how ants and bees "vote" for the best course of action for the colony (namely the "waggle dance" and the "chemical trails") and you will revise your thoughts about the feasibility of decentralized decision making and the limits of a full democracy.

Jun 22 2013:
Well, philosophy does evolve and new theories are born as years progress, but should we "wait"? It is not like philosophical theories create themselves. People have to create them first, and it is people who do not wait, but instead strive for change and progress that create them. And another thing: even if democracy does change over time, even if it is replaced but what you called "neocracy", wouldn't the essence be the same? I mean a name cannot change the meaning behind it, and, whether people like it or not, a democratic state will always be the perfect state: the state where people make the decisions that affect their lives, and do not give this enormous power to the few, or the one.

Jun 22 2013:
I never said that democracy is absolutely perfect, but, relatively, it cannot be compared either to oligarchy or monarchy. The rule of the many will always, and I do mean always, be preferable to the rule of the few or the one. By the way don't be so sure that people who lived under monarchy were happy about it - excluding of course all those favoured by the court. I am quite sure that people who lived in poverty their whole lives and starved to death in order for their "beloved" king or queen to sustain their ten foot long belly didn't feel like they were living in some kind of dream state.

Jun 22 2013:
poor people in my country have no voice, no rights........our democratic country is run by few powerful and corrupt elected politicians......a worst joke is being played here in the name of democracy.
It is not the failure of democracy as a philosophy but its application.

In today's world there appears to be no better system than democracy . But we need a system which canot be exploited by a few .powerful and corrupt people. A system which has inbuilt strength and character which can withstand manipulation by few.

Jun 23 2013:
Well it's true what you say about many so called democratic states being corrupt and not democratic at all. Indeed democracy is very unstable and easy to exploit. It's vulnerability is rooted in the fact that power is equally distributed amongst all citizens and not concentrated on the wealthy few. Its not being authoritarian means that some citizens in their effort to rise to power might subtly exploit this weakness by earning the trust of parts of the population in order to establish their own rule, be it tyranny or military dictatorship. However, this is not democracy's fault - it is its flaw (as I said democracy is relatively perfect). In reality the blame lies with the people, since they are the ones who have the power and, therefore, they are the ones who should strive to preserve it. Democracy is the fairest, yet the hardest and least endurable political system of them all. It requires the relentless alertness of the people, who act as its "guardian angels". The well known quote sums it up perfectly: "With great power comes great responsibility". People who live in a democracy can enjoy its numerous advantages, namely freedom, equality, etc., but they also need to struggle to fix its flaws, i.e. the fact that democracy at some point is almost doomed to "commit suicide'. Having said that I would like to point out that, even though democracy in the real world is not all it's cracked up to be, it is also quite utopian to believe that a system as fair to the people as democracy and as stable and powerful as monarchy could ever exist. Strength can only accompany the rule of the few or the one, and fairness the rule of the many. It is up to us to choose which one we want. But if we do choose the latter, we must be ready to struggle to keep it alive. Only people concious of their freedom can ever live in a real democracy, like the one in ancient Greece, where the government and the people were one and the same. It is up to the people to keep democracy alive.

Jun 22 2013:
The only thing wrong with this concept is that as participants in democcracy increases, we give our votes to "representatives" who may or may not look to solutions which are in our best interest. Because of this, perhaps rulership by plutocracy becomes inevitable? Is that not what has happened in the US? Perhaps the only solution lies in revolution and a rebirth of democracy...as evidenced by history.

Jun 23 2013:
I couldn't agree more with what you just said. In fact that was part of my point. Indeed, as the population increases, democracy starts to weaken, since the need for representation of the people arises and the idea of direct democracy is gradually forsaken. However, as I said, this is not democracy's fault, since this indirect democracy is just the façade of oligarchy (or plutocracy if you prefer). If we really want to revive real democracy we need to change all those institutions that favour the rich and powerful and replace them with ones which would allow everyone to participate in the decision making process. In other words a "rebirth of democracy" is the only thing that could lead to a world where people of all classes could be part of the political system and share the power together.